Sad News Overnight Thread

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:36


It isn't fun to report on bad news, much less on a weekend night after a big victory. However, there are two sad items to report:

  1. Darcy concedes: Darcy Burner has conceded in Washington's 8th congressional district. Darcy writes over email:

    "It is likely at this point that Congressman Reichert has won re-election, and while we will certainly ensure that every valid vote is counted, we accept the decision of the voters.

    "I would like to thank the thousands of people who put so much time and effort into the campaign, as well as the countless thousands more who went beyond voting to actively participate in our democratic process this year. The election of Barack Obama as our new President will ensure that the change to the direction of our country called for in this campaign is realized in the new year."

    This is a victory for local media hit jobs over people power and smart, young leaders. And it is just really, really frakking sad. Darcy's insight, strength and organizing ability will always hold real meaning to me. And she is just a great person, too. It is very rare that I feel a connection with a congressional candidate.

  2. Fifty-state strategy on hold: The DNC organizers who actually form the core of the 50-state strategy at the DNC are being laid off:

    A rumor at this point (or rather, someone unwilling to go on record) but what I'm hearing is that the DNC organizers who implement the 50 state strategy are about to be let go. Apparently they will be laid off at the end of the month, and the new DNC chair will decide whether he or she wants to continue the 50 state policy.

    Hopefully, the new DNC chair will decide to keep the fifty-state strategy alive. However, I'm not optimistic:

    It is worth noting, however, that the 50 state strategy's biggest opponent, for years has been Rahm Emanuel. Rahm's new job? Chief of Staff. Wonder if Obama's ok with this?

    I'll guess we will find out. If the organizers get re-hired after Obama selects the new DNC chair, then he believes in the fifty state strategy. If they don't get re-hired, then the only fifty state strategy Obama believed in was the one for his own campaign. I'm strongly hoping it is the former, but Emanuel really was the strongest opponent of the fifty-state strategy.

I'm sorry to be the bring of bad news tonight. However, the fifty-state strategy and Darcy Burner were two big netroots campaigns over the past four years, and these reports needed to be made.
Chris Bowers :: Sad News Overnight Thread

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Sad News Overnight Thread | 69 comments
I warned people YEARS ago how dangerous this Rahm Emanuel douche (4.00 / 2)
was.  Seemed nobody listened.  He's really more loyal to the Clinton wing than Obama.  This pick by Obama is terrible.  Hey, but at least it gets his centrist corporatist egoist ass out of the House where he'd do even more damage to our cause.  Word has it that Pelosi couldn't be happier with his ass out of the House.

He's a puke of the highest order.  And he's NEVER EVER been a friend of Howard Dean.  In fact, he HATES Dean.



For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

Read all about his shenannigans (0.00 / 0)
at  Down With Tyranny.  I have Rahm googled.
[ Parent ]
Emanuel's not a "centrist" (4.00 / 5)

 Centrism implies that one has, in fact, a few progressive beliefs mixed in with conservative ones.

 Is there any evidence that Rahm harbors ANY progressive principles, at all?

  I really don't understand why Rahm Emanuel is a Democrat.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Personally, I'm Glad Rahm is out of Congress! (4.00 / 1)
Does ANYBODY think Rahm is worrying about the DNC strategy right now?

As White House Chief of Staff he has NOTHING to do with it!

He's trying to organize Obama's cabinet selection, and dealing with Congress and strategizing over whether Obama can get the lame duck session of Congress to pass his stimulus package or whether he has to wait until January.

He's worried about organizing the Obama White House and he's working for a boss who doesn't suffer fools gladly. He'd better get it right.

Frankly, I think this job is perfectly suited to his talents.

There IS some worry that Rahm will screen out progressives from access to the President. But, Obama is NOT an empty headed tool like George Bush. He has his own ideas, and he wants to talk to everybody.

He's going to make his own decisions, not parrot whatever Rahm wants. So, I'll wait till I see some evidence that Obama really wants to ignore his mandate and that Rahm is exerting some sort of pernicious influence before I start worrying about it.

Certainly Republicans don't like his appointment at all and are universally seeing it as evidence he wants to play hard-ball with them in the Congress rather than being "bi-partisan" which they interpret as meaning that Obama should act just like Dick Cheney or like McCain won the election.

As for Darcy Burner, too bad she lost, but it's ONE House Seat! ONE! Does anybody think one seat is going to make a major difference? Anybody remember Congressman Ron Dellums?

He was a progressive as anybody could want and served for decades, but what impact did he have?

It's the movement not the man that matters. Darcy Burner would have made a nice beginning. Now it's time to organize about 10 more Darcy Burners and fund them in various races across the country. THAT might make a difference.

[ Parent ]
Yes, I believe he is concered about the DNC (4.00 / 1)
he is a center-right politician, and he is filters who Obama gets advise from.

If the movement not the man matters, then we have a right to be concerned about the DNC.  Obama isn't the movment either.

[ Parent ]
Why can't we organize for a replacement for Howard (4.00 / 2)
Dean then?  We got him elected in the first place.  Why can't we get his successor elected?  We can't allow the dlcers to lose congress again.  They may well have pulled a fast one on us with Obama and probably finding  a mistress/hooker to seduce Edwards and kill his campaign, but they don't necessarily get to lose congress again.

I never thought it was a good idea for us to waste our energy on the Presedency at this point because we don't have electable progressives for it, yet.  I always preferred cultivating congress.

You need to quit waisting time arguing with the full time paid dlc trolls here and concentrate on the DNC.

Honestly judging by Obama's picks I am not takin my chances on him anymore and neither should you.

The problem (4.00 / 2)
Is that it's a lot easier to campaign for the DNC chair when the position is chosen by the state Democratic committees. But that only happens when there is no Democratic President. We can't get Dean's successor elected because there isn't going to be an election.

Still, I recall Obama saying nice things about Dean and the 50 state strategy in the past.

[ Parent ]
he is still elected even when we have a democratic president (0.00 / 0)
.  The President doesn't get to arbitrarily pick the chair.
[ Parent ]
That's news (0.00 / 0)
What Jack wrote is what I'd heard. I remember reading CW reports that from a progressive movement building standpoint, if Clinton became president the 50-state strategy was dead because the president chooses the DNC head.
Does anybody have a link somewhere to what the actual rules are? The DNC website isn't making it very easy to find info on how the organization itself is governed.
[ Parent ]
Here is the wiki article on the DNC (0.00 / 0)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

It mentions nothing about the President picking the chair.

I just think the Presidents preferences are traditionally honored but if the President wants to self destruct because he has a prefernce for a split republican/democratic government why should we?

[ Parent ]
Whether there will still be an election or if the president picks and the DNC ratifies... (0.00 / 0)
we have a pressure point around which to organize and defend the 50-state strategy.

How unfortunate we may have to dissipate our energies playing defense rather than helping with the governing. OTOH, maybe the point is to distract the netroots from the governing and lower our expectations for the governing.

We're going to have to manage our own energies to not be played like that.

[ Parent ]
'Unfortunate' (0.00 / 0)
euphemism for sucky.
[ Parent ]
It is not clear they want our help (0.00 / 0)
getting rid of the 50 state strategy makes it clear they don't.
[ Parent ]
Huh (0.00 / 0)
I suppose I could be wrong. An extensive google search reveals the actual rule to be...impossible to find! It does make sense that the party would maintain the notion that the chair was selected by committee members- even if they always endorse the incumbent Democrat's choice. Still, I'm sure I recall hearing that the rules were different when the President is a Democrat.

Anyway...

what the fuck happened to this: http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

[ Parent ]
Regardless of current rules and tradition... (4.00 / 1)
...a Democratic President shouldn't have the power to unilaterally pick the next DNC chair.  That power should lay with party members and, especially this year, with the small donors who delivered the win.

We need a long term movement, based on principle and in it for the long haul, not a short-term vehicle for one person's political goals.  That's a case that can be made without bringing in any issues related to particular individuals who are popular or unpopular with party factions.

How hapless are we, though, if we don't even know the rules for selecting a chair?  (I don't know them either.  I'm just sayin'....)

[ Parent ]
As I remember (0.00 / 0)
Obama had the option to essentially replace Howard Dean with his own campaign operatives when he became the Presidential nominee, and specifically chose not to and chose to keep Dean in and work with him instead. Please correct me if I am remembering wrong here.

I think it is a reasonable hope that the selection of Rahm Emanuel should be taken as a sign of "Obama wants to work with all the factions of the Democratic party" and not "Obama wants to favor the Rahm Emanuel faction of the Democratic Party"

[ Parent ]
Now, of all the silly posts (0.00 / 0)
on this site over the last few days, each one loudly proclaiming new evidence of treachery...

...this is the one item, if true, that should be fought and fought very hard.

It would appear to be a move to shut down the party's "agnostic" apparatus, before creating a new funding structure for hand-picked candidates who meet narrowly-defined litmus tests...exactly what the DLC was, and exactly what HRC was planning to do herself.

Link up with the blogosphere and DFA and investigate this further...

Can we stop dissing Clinton? (4.00 / 2)
The primaries are over.

If and when Obama governs as a progressive, you can have all the nyah nyah nyahs you want, but that has not happened yet.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Out of that whole comment... (0.00 / 0)
you focused on HRC?

Wow.

[ Parent ]
It's kind of a theme, in case you haven't noticed. (0.00 / 0)
You aren't the only one who does it, but there seems to be this compulsion among Obama supporters to build him up by putting the Clintons down. It's annoying and counter-productive for so many reasons.

Like I said elsewhere, if and when Obama governs as a progressive, you can nyah nyah nyah to your heart's content. But that hasn't happened yet.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Two items.... (4.00 / 2)
First, the loss of the Fifty-State Strategy has weighed heavily on my mind since I heard that it was likely going to disappear about a month ago, with the stepping down of Howard Dean form the DNC.

Perhaps now is the time to use ActBlue for specific funding of organizers in key states on an annual basis.  If the DSCC and DCCC can't play nice and ensure a foundation exists for future victories, perhaps we have to do it ourselves.

----------------------------

Second, and this is more painful, a little back of the envelope calculation shows that with an approximate 10.4% increase in turnout, the final percentages changed very little:

2006: Reichert 51.46% / Burner 48.54%
2008: Reichert 51.54% / Burner 48.46%

We'll need to review the results in detail, but I'd like a close look at any internal polls in detail over the last month, or at least a precinct breakdown between the two elections, to better see what went on in both races, to determine if there is just a wall we can't breach at this time.

Hey (0.00 / 0)
Now thats a notion. Anyone know what the 50 state budget was?  
[ Parent ]
I think it is clear the Seattle Times turned the election (4.00 / 4)
She was leading the polls just prior to the hit piece.  SurveyUSA had her 50-46 the day before.

Then right wing talk radio went to town on Burner calling her a liar, and Reichert finally had an attack ad that made a difference.  She would have lost most on the fencers, or those who would have otherwise voted for her because she was a Democrat.  The fact early ballot went her way and she lost at the polls and is losing with the later votes indicates that before this broke voters were supporting her, afterward, they weren't.

Emily Heffter should be ashamed.

On The Road To 2008: Commentary on issues as we countdown to the next opportunity to change the direction of America

[ Parent ]
*sigh* (4.00 / 2)
Abandoning the 50 state strategy? Wtf, it's the best strategy Democrats have had in decades.  Does nobody remember 1994? I hate it when politics gets so political.
It looks like (4.00 / 2)
The dems want to lose congress, then they will have an excuse to be center right, the way the villiage wants them to be.
[ Parent ]
Just as Rahm wants it. (0.00 / 0)


For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
Sad (0.00 / 1)
Edwards' message was not dynamic which is why he lost. He did not resonate. And thank God he did not--the immoral cad! Is the activism ignited by Obama meaningless? It's as if Obama's victory means less to progressives than Burner's loss. Where is your perspective?

Burner is awesome but your "feelings" for her should be dwarfed by Obama's victory. Giordano had you pegged. It's not about victory (that which will change actual lives), it's about ideological purity qua purity.  Sad.


This isn't about "purity" (4.00 / 6)

  This is about the Democratic Party's seemingly uncontrollable impulses to commit hara-kiri, even in the wake of a strong, decisive victory.

 We implemented an electoral strategy that paid off beyond our wildest dreams. So, naturally, we have to kill it.

 We have a senator in our midst who actively campaigned for the other side and denigrated our candidates. So, naturally, we have to coddle him and indulge his every demand.

 I hold out hope that Obama won't fall into this defeatist culture, but his early appointments (and rumored appointments) don't inspire confidence in that regard.
 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Don't answer her (0.00 / 0)
she is here to rub yer noses in their power grab and waste your time when you should be thinking about other more important things like maintaining the 50 state strategy for congressional elections.  This post is neaner neaner neaner from Rahm.

[ Parent ]
Seems pretty defeatist (0.00 / 0)
to scream about everything going wrong before it even starts going wrong.  
[ Parent ]
Soo.. (0.00 / 0)
We implemented an electoral strategy that paid off beyond our wildest dreams. So, naturally, we have to kill it.

Yea lets act like rumors are facts just to give in to the purity impulse of jumping on Obama's throats 3 days after he won a landslide by expanding his map!! why would he not want to expand it? my guess is he wants to expand it HIS way if there is a semblance of truth to these rumors. if that is the case more power to him since he has shown he knows what he is doing so far with brilliance.

[ Parent ]
Let's hope the crap about a change in strategy is only a rumour! (4.00 / 3)
This would be so dumb that it crosses the border to insanity. What about 2010? How would the Dems defend their strong Senate presence? The 50 state strategy was the core reason for Obama's victory. And it's the best insurance for Dem victories in 2010 and beyond. Getting rid of it would be madness. Period.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
DNC (4.00 / 1)
I need a refresher on the DNC leadership hiring process. I recall two different pieces of information:

- that Dean was chosen by the party chairs from the 50 states,

-  that the leader of the DNC was selected by the president when the prez is Democratic.

If the second point is true, the fate of the 50-state strategy could be an important bellwether for how much influence Rahm is going to have over Obama. You would think that a community organizer would instinctively understand the importance of 50-state strategy.

I would conclude that Obama is a completely different political creature from what he represented himself as if he stuffs the 50-state strategy - or that his strength of character is much weaker than it seemed and he's going to be rolled around by Rahm.

Refresher (4.00 / 1)
When the Democrats don't have the presidency, they are picked by the DNC members, when the Democrats have a President, the DNC Chair is picked by the PResident and ratified by the DNC members.
[ Parent ]
Thank you n/t (0.00 / 0)
Then there is a pressure point if the DNC members have to ratify.
[ Parent ]
big thread on this topic over at kos (0.00 / 0)
Wow. I didn't know the COS was more powerful than the President (0.00 / 0)
but from all the handwringing going on that must be the case.

Now if he's not the most powerful man in the country perhaps it's not that big a deal and perhaps it's a plus since now Rahm has to follow orders.  

What twaddle! (4.00 / 1)
Let me bring some sanity back to this post.  The layoffs at the DNC, the DCCC, and the DSCC ALWAYS happen after the election.  In the off years these organizations run pretty bare bones operations, usually consisting mostly of fundraisers.  The DCCC and DSCC will restaff in the last half of 2009 for the 2010 elections. The DNC will staff up again in 2011 for 2012.

Second, when the Democrats win the presidency, the President will get to choose the chairman of the DNC,
not the COS.  I could not see in any circumstances that Obama would pick someone for the DNC who was not a believer in the 50 state project.

The employees in question have worked for the dnc (4.00 / 3)
since 2004.  How did that happened if they are automatically laid off?  Also, while the state party heads may generally honor the presidents pick, they are not obligated to do so.  They still elect the DNC chair reguardless of who is in office and if he wants to dry up their funding and get rid of the 50 state strategy why should they honor his pick.
[ Parent ]
Isn't that how Dean won in the first place? (4.00 / 4)
That was my impression anyway. I read somewhere that he was the only candidate who promised the state party heads that he would a) open the books to them and b) let them keep more of their money for local organizing. Hopefully they have gotten used to that and will demand the same of his replacement.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Since 2004? That was the last Presidential election (0.00 / 0)
right? The appropriate inquiry is what happened between 2000 and 2004.  
[ Parent ]
Dean became chairman of the DNC in February 2005. (0.00 / 0)
So, why do you think a comparison with the 2000-2004 period is significant?

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
I don't remember the sequence. (0.00 / 0)
I just remember this group has been together since the ascendency of Dean.
[ Parent ]
Routine for Winner to Take Over Party Apparatus (4.00 / 3)
As soon as Obama was nominated by the Democratic Party, he moved the DNC operating arm to Chicago, presumably to mesh and subordinate DNC state operations to his own field operations.

If Obama is dismantling the 50 state strategy, it will be for the same reason. Winners typically move to take over party structures so that they can build their own re-election operations.

In my experience, electoral winners do not seek to build the party per se, except to promote their own re-election chances. That is why the Democratic Party has always been so weak.

The progressive movement needs to keep building its own apparatus to support progressive candidates and recognize that it may have to go head-to-head against Obama's efforts if he moves to support and run unprogressive candidates who endorse his agenda, to the extent his agenda moves in an unprogressive direction.

If Obama tries to implement policies that run contrary to the expectations of supporters who voted for him, especially the youth vote and the African American vote, these voters and the activists among them will start working against Obama's ground operations and support for unprogressive candidates -- provided there are good progressives running against them.

Similarly, Obama can be expected to use his social networking techniques and reported online database of 10,000,000 supporters to rally voters behind his agenda and the electoral candidates he supports, but the netroots has the potential to mobilize effective electoral opposition if he tries to use his social network to move in an unprogressive direction.    

but you forget (4.00 / 2)
The state party chairs benefitted directly from Dean strategy in the form of more money and more workers in the feild.  If Obama dries this up, there is a formula for rebellion within the dnc itself.
[ Parent ]
True (4.00 / 4)
But Nancy brings up a point... perhaps he WANTS to take away the power of some of these state chairs so he can get his own people in there.    Obama seems to be tailoring the party not only to work well for his election but to play big Kahuna in the party for the next 30-40 years....

In other words, the main apparatus in the party is the Clinton Apparatus and he's trying to blow that up and replace it with his own.. Knock Bill down a peg in the Party Pecking Order.  And frankly a successful, scandal free Obama Presidency without Congressional Turnover (meaning control changes hands) will do that.

[ Parent ]
By blowing it up you mean hiring it? (4.00 / 1)
Rahm Emmanuel, Larry Summers, these are Clinton administration alumni.

Hate Clintons if you want, but don't kid yourself that Obama vs Clinton is the problem here. Obama vs Obama is the problem. Which Obama will prevail? "Change we can believe in" or "Don't make waves?"

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
You'd prefer who? (0.00 / 0)
He needs to hit the ground running and that requires people who have been there before. Unfortunately Dems are unable to win elections so the only pool he has to choose from is Clinton's.  
[ Parent ]
You can't have it both ways. (0.00 / 0)
Either the Clintons are evil and the source of everything bad in the Democratic Party, or Bill Clinton was the most recent success of the Democratic Party. If the latter is true, then yeah, it  makes sense to raid his cabinet. If the first is true then it does not.

So which is it?

My personal opinion is that Obama is very much like Clinton, in both the good and bad ways. He has the same charisma and ability with words. He has the same weakness of wanting too badly to be loved.

We'll see how it plays out. I am hoping that even though we have the same man all over again, things will be different this time because the environment is different. There were no netroots in the 1990's.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Dean is not part of Clinton pecking order (4.00 / 2)
that was DNC chair McAuliffe, the person who lost to Dean.
[ Parent ]
he is right. the state chairs and the dem state infrasturcture (0.00 / 0)
are by and large clinton people...
[ Parent ]
Maybe so (4.00 / 2)
You may be correct, but I think it more likely that Obama will have the leverage he needs to put in the DNC chair he prefers, though there may be some pushback, as you suggest.

What I surmise is that Dean probably knew this was coming, given the fight he had with Clinton supporters over the DNC chair and his recognition of the strength of the DLC faction.

If so, it explains why he and his brother created Democracy for America (DFA), which I have always viewed as a parallel grassroots organizing proto-party. It has operatives in every Congressional districts and has been training activists in mobilizing voters, while encouraging aspiring progressive candidates to run for office.

Dean, I believe, recognized the extent to which his presidential primary bid had been shafted in Iowa by Democratic party centrists who opposed his anti-Iraq war stance and suspected he might harbor progressive proclivities.

If Obama tries to move the party too much to center right and betrays its progressive constituents, DFA, I suspect, is poised to create an active grassroots opposition and possibly a third party if DLC sympathizers take over the party under Obama's aegis.  

[ Parent ]
It was very likely Clinton would pick the DNC chair last time (4.00 / 1)
around but it didn't happen.   This owed itself to a letter writing campaign form DFA.  This can be repeated.
[ Parent ]
Focus (4.00 / 1)
But wasn't it the point of the netroots to recover the Democratic party to the progressive mandate rather than working in third parties and alternative organizations? You seem to be operating from a premise that we should lay off the party and do our own thing. This is about making our thing the party's thing to the extent we can.

We should be focused on movement building through the tools of the party, not reinventing the wheel. And the 50-state strategy is a movement building tool for the progressive mandate since people power invariably leads to more progressive policy.

If we could build an organization big enough to match the reach of the Democratic party then we might as well replace the party.

[ Parent ]
Yes, it was (0.00 / 0)
the netroots strategy to recover the Democratic party on behalf of progressives rather than working in third parties.

That's why so many of the netrooters worked for Obama.

The preferred course for progressives is to take over the Democratic party, and possibly they will succeed in doing that.

But if Obama turns against them in favor of right-of-center policies that undermine progressive causes, and given that he will also control the party apparatus, there are only two courses of action. The first is to run progressive candidates inside the party against Obama's center-right electoral candidates. If this fails, which it well might because of his potential to control campaign funding sources, then a third party may be the only remaining option.

According to most opinion polls, a majority of Americans favor core progressive policies. But they cannot elect candidates who implement them, with few exceptions, because the winning candidates are beholden to the fat corporate cats and wealthy individuals who fund their campaigns, and these folks are mostly right of center and oppose core progressive policies like a single payer healthcare system.

This is as true of the vast majority of Republican and Democratic candidates, and it explains why the 2006 Congressional election results failed to lead to ending the war in Iraq.

So if Obama drives the Democratic party in a right of center direction to capture Independent voters, and progressives cannot compete with him and elect progressive candidates over his center right candidates, then a third party is the only option.

Possibly with DFA as an organizing arm, it will be possible to run and elect progressive candidates inside the Democratic party. But that remains to be seen.

 

[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
Maybe Rahm will change his tune, given that the its worked the last two cycles.

Any idea who the new chair will be?

I thought it was going to be Paul Tewes .. (4.00 / 2)
wasn't he the one Obama sent to help out Howard Dean?
[ Parent ]
If that comes true, that would change the picture somewhat... (0.00 / 0)
and make it more likely that Obama deliberately appointed Rahmbo to get him out of the way. What do you think?

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
Sorry that Darcy Lost... (0.00 / 0)
Maybe she can get an Administration Job or a local Party position and re-run in 2-4 years.
50 state strategy (4.00 / 3)
Since I live in the biggest red state, I have a natural affection for the 50 state strategy.  Seriously, the progressive movement can't simply abandon people in red states to the loving arms of the Republicans.  Red states are significantly poorer than blue states, for one thing, so more of the people who need help live down here.  if that isn't enough, even a cynic should realize that we shouldn't leave the R's with a geographic power base.  If the D's want long-term success and not just to fix things after the R's screw up every ten years or so, we need to develop organizations in all 50 states.  The results in Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina from this cycle ought to be enough evidence to support Dean's vision.  
Right! And you can't simply hire and fire people... (4.00 / 3)
for six months works every two years, and expect them to be enthusiastic about that. Those folks have to make a living, too. By offering only temporary jobs, the Dems would lose a lot of highly qualified people who get better opportunities elsewhere and who want more job security in their lifes. Not a good idea, really.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
Plouffe for the DNC? (4.00 / 1)

YES! (4.00 / 1)
That would be AWESOME!!!!
[ Parent ]
50 states (0.00 / 0)
I am sorry about the Burner result and that some hard-working folks at the DNC are being selectively let go off. But I will not be sorry to see the 50 state strategy go. Different people mean different things by the 50 state strategy -- I mean it in what I sense is the way Howard Dean used it: appeasement of cross-bar waving pickup driving rednecks. And that is something that we can do without, both strategically and morally.

The New York Times provided a set of graphs that showed voting trends across the nation, and in every region but one, most districts swung Democratic. The exception: the south and southern Appalachia. This is the voice of the Southern White population. A large turnout of black people in these same regions (which have larger black populations than most of the rest of the country), does not negate (but rather highlights) this simple fact.

If on the other hand, we wish to keep a presence in these states, field candidates, foster grassroots progressive movements, and so on, we don't need a fancy new term for that -- that sort of activity has been mostly continuous before and after the discovery of the term ("50 state strategy").

If this result shows anything, it is that Thomas Schaller is/was absolutely right.

Is it possible (0.00 / 0)
That if the DNC hypothetically does not choose to continue the 50 state strategy, that function can instead be performed by independent MoveOn-like* groups?

* I mean structurally like MoveOn, not necessarily ideologically like MoveOn.

Three things: (4.00 / 2)
1) I seriously doubt a Democratic president appoints the DNC chair. My guess is that he "selects" him or her, and then the DNC elects that choice at their January meeting, in deference to the president's wishes. In North Carolina, the state chair is elected by the state exec. committee, but normally the party defers to the governor's choice.

2) Despite that tradition, we managed to veto Mike Easley's choice in 2005 and elect Jerry Meek, one of the best state chairs in the country, if not the best. It was like the Dean for Chair campaign, except that we went against the party insiders and a sitting Democratic governor.

And for all the griping by the insiders that this was about liberals trying to torpedo the party, or, worse, torpedo Mike Easley, the fight was really about rural counties responding to Jerry's promise to work to build the party in parts of the state that were usually neglected. That's pretty much the same ground on which we'd be defending the 50-state strategy, so if it comes to fighting the president on this one, there's precedent.

My guess it's going to be a much harder fight, given how much Obama has done to build the party - and given how wealthy and connected your average DNC member is as opposed to a state exec. member - but it might be worth it.

3) I think we need to wait a week until we take umbrage over this story. The facts behind this rumor will come out, and my guess is that it won't be as bad as some of us interpret it to be.

One other thing: in North Carolina, Jerry Meek took the money the DNC gave us for one organizer position, and then raised enough additional to create two positions. After 2006, I think he created a couple more. So if Rahm, or Obama, or whoever the hell else wants to cut the organizers out, it's possible the parties will be able to continue to maintain them.

Sad News Overnight Thread | 69 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox